Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Student Politics: SJP censure forum

Today in the
University of Auckland Quad, the SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) censure
forum took place. Prior to the meeting, I was sitting at a table where an SJP
advocate handed out some material on apartheid in Palestine. It became clear at
that moment that the agenda was more than just the process by which the AUSA
enabled their President Arena Williams to accept an invitation to participate
in the trip to Israel hosted by AIJAC (Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council) an independent Australian organisation. This
is contrary to what I think I had initially posted, in that it was my understanding
that there was some correlation between the group hosting and the Israeli
government. While I was present for the first two motions, I was not there for
the third.

The first motion
was to censure President of AUSA Arena Williams for failing to consult
students. The motion carried and Arena was censured.

The SJP
advocates fiercely denunciated the oppression of the Palestinian people. In
doing so, the SJP intimated that had Arena travelled to Palestine, then her travel
would not have been disputed. The insistence was that for a person to truly
understand the Israel/Palestine conflict they must visit Palestine. I
understand this point, that a broader worldview requires seeing the conflict
from both sides; however, the trip was hosted by an Israeli organisation and
the opportunity to see it from the Palestinian view was probably unavailable on
this occasion, but that does not amount to a rejection by Arena of the
Palestinian struggle. The presumption of the SJP is that Arena was not
interested in understanding the conflict from the point of view of
Palestinians. This is unfounded and suggests that the attack was on Arena as an
individual rather than a criticism of her accepting the invitation as President
of the AUSA. Even in the midst of the personal attack on her, when the mover of
the censure was asked to finish up, it was Arena who voiced “let her speak!”

The second
motion was that Arena Williams apologise in writing for the offence she has
caused to students for her trip to Israel.

The debate here
revolved around the offence caused by Arena’s presence in Israel. Omar Hamed
did make the concession during his address that an apology from Arena was not
going to resolve the conflict in Palestine. However, others alleged that
Arena’s presence in Israel and in accepting the invitation to travel there
amounted to an endorsement of the Israeli Government’s inhumane treatment of
Palestinians. The motion for apology passed and Arena gave a very emotional
apology for any offence she caused. She wore her heart on her sleeve, and
showed a great degree of composure and strength in delivering her address.

I have been
keeping a close eye on Twitter for other updates. It is reported that some Israeli students stood up to speak and were shouted down by the
SJP. Additionally, it is reported that the SJP were recording the forum even
though a pro-life group had previously not been allowed.

The third motion
was for AUSA to consult on 'contentious issues' with students. The motion passed.
Although it appears, that there is actually a referendum process for this as
part of AUSA’s constitution.

In all, this appears
to have been a smokescreen for the SJP to advocate their opposition to the
Israeli government. However, the rally they had going today suggested that anyone who intends to travel or has travelled
to Israel is by default a supporter of the Israeli government. I am wondering
if every person who travels to New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United States
and any other country where indigenous peoples were colonised, are endorsers of
colonisation? Hypocrisy?

To the SJP, no-one
condones the oppression of Palestinians and the cruel and inhumane treatment
suffered by Palestinians at the hands of those empowered by the Israeli
government. However, it was unnecessary for your organisation to launch an
attack on Arena Williams, the criticism should have been directed at the
process by which executive members (including the President) of the AUSA are
enabled to participate in contentious political forums, which was basically the
last motion carried.

Translate

About Me

The views expressed are my personal views. Some views will be well researched while others will be reactionary. Where appropriate I will provide references to material. Prone to inconsistencies over time. Feel free to hit me up about it.